Slashdot Mirror
Google Throws /. Under Bus To Snag Patent
theodp writes "Before Danny Hillis and Bran Ferren invented Google's newly-patented system for 'Delegating Authority to Evaluate Content', Google says users looking for content evaluation websites were condemned to the likes of Amazon.com and Slashdot. From the patent: 'Many sites found on the World Wide Web allow users to evaluate content found within the site. The Slashdot Web site (www.slashdot.org) allows users to "mod" comments recently posted by other users. Based on this information obtained from the users, the system determines a numerical score for each comment ranging from 1 to 5.' The problem with sites like Slashdot, Google told the USPTO, is that 'because there is no restriction on the users that may participate, the reliability of the ratings is correspondingly diminished.' Commissioning a small number of trusted evaluators or editors would increase the reliability of the evaluations, Google notes, but wouldn't allow nearly as much content to be evaluated. Google's solution? Allow trusted evaluators to transfer a 'quantity of authority' to like-minded 'contributing authorities', who in turn designate and delegate authority to additional like-minded contributing authorities. Think Microsoft Outlook 97 Delegate Access meets Slashdot Karma Points, and you've got the general idea!"
3... 2... 1... Go!
Meh. This is more like "We think we can improve on the best thing." I believe we actually had a thread about this here recently.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Let's face it, the slashdot moderation system has been broken for a long time. That's where the term slashthink/slashdot group think comes from. If you post a comment that general user base of slashdot likes, it will be modded up. If you post a comment, even a really insightful and interesting one that the general user base doesn't like, it will be modded down. Comments that rank up? Promote free speech, removing copyrights, getting rids of patents, point out how "suits" just don't get us geeks and so on. Comments that go immediately down? Tell informative, but bad points about the current state of Linux, dislike Google, try to be reasonable about copyrights and DRM or say that Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there.
I can't find the old post now because it was long time ago, but it went something like this. Every user are given some amount of moderation points, that affect the moderation as a whole. In addition to that, it affects the moderation you see favorable to the likes of you. If they are on your friend lists, their moderation carries more value. If they have moderated similarly to you, their moderation weights more to you. Of course, this should be balanced so that you don't get fully one viewed comments - if some comment is generally modded very high (and forget the -1-5 scale now), it would be displayed to you anyway. If you add to that that comments where you, or similar persons to you have commented, will be fully displayed regardless of their moderation (or some adjustation of that), it would work out really well. Of course, it needs a lot more computation power on the server side.
For me, personally? I like Reddit's comment system. It has it's faults, but it's better than Slashdot. Interesting posts are on top, and you can just scroll down for more.
Still, I browse Slashdot at -1 and read what interests me. I come here for the comments, jokes and all that. I like to see it all when the subject is interesting. No moderating system can ever beat your own judgement (even if it's wrong one).
Allow trusted evaluators to transfer a 'quantity of authority' to like-minded 'contributing authorities', who in turn designate and delegate authority to additional like-minded contributing authorities.
Um, isn't this exactly what would promote the problem of politically active users donating time to keep adverse stories repressed?
...
Quality can be controlled to some extent but biases are much harder to determine
My work here is dung.
doesn't the meta-moderation system essentially do what Google is talking about - I always assumed that if your mods got marked as appropriate in metamod, your chances of modding again improved, and vice-versa.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I believe this delegation is a direct copy of how trusted access on pirate-networks work.
Can you simply patent a method invented by someone else for illicit and clandestant activities?
Mod parent down. (If only I had mod points.) Wait!
Their they're doing there hair.
I can't see Google trying to assert a patent claim against a site that they cited as prior art for continuing to use its groupthink enforcement system. You'd have to be a patent troll of Intellectual Venturian proportions to even contemplate anything so Quixotic.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Oh so long ago when it sold itself for $$$ to whoever that company was. The bus has been running it over ever since.
So who trusts the "trusted evaluators" in the first place? This could easily be abused into more of a group-think than slashdot, if indeed /. is guilty of group-think. I'm thinking more like a personal blog, where moderators must approve all comments. If the mod doesn't like it, the comment doesn't exist for the general public. Do we trust google to moderate our content for us?
I mean, I guess we (as a corporate whole) already do, based on their share of the search market, but seriously. How far should we let this go?
Let's face it, the slashdot moderation system has been broken for a long time. That's where the term slashthink/slashdot group think comes from. If you post a comment that general user base of slashdot likes, it will be modded up. If you post a comment, even a really insightful and interesting one that the general user base doesn't like, it will be modded down. Comments that rank up? Promote free speech, removing copyrights, getting rids of patents, point out how "suits" just don't get us geeks and so on. Comments that go immediately down? Tell informative, but bad points about the current state of Linux, dislike Google, try to be reasonable about copyrights and DRM or say that Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there.
There's a difference between being "unpopular" and "wrong." I disagree with you and find that well written -- though unpopular -- posts will be moderated highly. I, myself, have participated in receiving such moderation. You can make valid points about the current state of Linux (without having to be apologetic) as long as you know what you are talking about. Here's one of my own posts where I rip on Google's tax evasion and it's moderated +4. That's just a quick one, if you need more, I'd be happy to spend some time to provide you counter examples do your claims. As a developer, however, I must say that your Visual Studio statement is completely without merit and will always be modded down. I come to Slashdot not because I'm afraid of debate but because I thirst for it. The most valuable comments are those that put me in my place.
I can't find the old post now because it was long time ago, but it went something like this. Every user are given some amount of moderation points, that affect the moderation as a whole. In addition to that, it affects the moderation you see favorable to the likes of you. If they are on your friend lists, their moderation carries more value. If they have moderated similarly to you, their moderation weights more to you. Of course, this should be balanced so that you don't get fully one viewed comments - if some comment is generally modded very high (and forget the -1-5 scale now), it would be displayed to you anyway. If you add to that that comments where you, or similar persons to you have commented, will be fully displayed regardless of their moderation (or some adjustation of that), it would work out really well. Of course, it needs a lot more computation power on the server side.
That sounds like a really sheltered solution. All I can think about as a comparison is people who live in -- and I'm not picking on them specifically -- a Mormon community only holding their immediate relatives as valid sources of comments. This can be said for any number of things, however, but this proposed "lensing" of Slashdot would just allow people to turtle into their sheltered bubbles. Eventually any contradictory points that I might have been exposed to are safely locked away and I am never challenged. What a horrible, repressed, unenlightened, biased, polarized existence! The website will be a therapist -- telling you only what you want to hear. Disagree with something? Delete the offending friend.
For me, personally? I like Reddit's comment system. It has it's faults, but it's better than Slashdot. Interesting posts are on top, and you can just scroll down for more.
Then go back to Reddit. Why are you here? Go back there where you can delete or modify what you just said when someone wants to engage in a debate with you! Never have I been so exasperated as with my brief foray on Reddit. Valid counterpoint? Deletes his post. Now what?
No moderating system can ever beat your own judgement (even if it's wrong one).
I think you're hung up on wrong/right versus unpopular/popular opinion. It's not so black and white and there is a blur there but I feel that Slashdot 1) presents a decent mix of stories and 2) the subsequent moderation gives you a good idea of what is popular and generally correct/informed.
My work here is dung.
Someone with brains AND A VOICE finally speaks up against Slashdot's miserable organization, wait.....what.....hold on a sec:
Okay, so what am I missing here? Where's the article? I see a link to a patent, a link to a pointless JPEG, and some kid's anecdotal evidence (if even that) that Google hates Slashdot. C'mon, theodp. This is the Internets. If you're going to make some absurd comment, at least have the wherewithal to link to someone else's page where someone else actually came up with or cited the idea. Even if it is completely bogus. It looks to me as though you waved your hands, threw some pixie dust, and declared that Google just insulted Slashdot. Where's the beef, sir?
--TSP
captcha: smoked
Users have been known to delegate authority to moderate by either selling their accounts or giving the password to another user. There are also a few troll accounts that are "groupware".
.
1 - Why is this patentable?
2 - Doesn't /.'s meta-mod system help to correct the issue raised?
I think the /. community mods accurately, the good out weighs the bad, and I have had more than one of my comments modded out of existence, and frankly some of my comments deserved to be (we all have bad days) but the thing to keep in mind here is we, we being the members of /., aren't modding for the outside World we mod for the community here on /. so it works well even with the trolls and hopeless pontificates.
No changes needed in my view.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I think Slashdot eds are being a little too sensitive. They didn't sue Slashdot or harm it, they simply claimed in a patent that they devised a better system. While I think software patents are dumb, I don't think creating a different system and saying why you think it's better is much of a problem.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
The minute /. starts to "Allow trusted evaluators to transfer a 'quantity of authority' to like-minded 'contributing authorities', who in turn designate and delegate authority to additional like-minded contributing authorities." because that is too much like the current system of media control and politics, or in other words go with the flow or fuck off.
Again, leave it alone it has worked just dandy all these years.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Did they come up with a catchy name for this Delegated Content Evaluation Authority? Might I suggest "whuffie?"
....)
(Yes, I was reading Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom last night
What they are describing IS slashdot. When you mod someone up or down, you are adding/removing from their chance to get mod points. You are delegating authority to them.
This sounds like the Gawker media method where they create starred commentators who can approve/reject posts from the masses.
A patent on duplicate stories!
"A method and procedure for placing the same content, with a slightly different summary and headline on the front page, sometimes within mere hours of each other."
There may be prior art, but I've never seen it done better or more frequently than here.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
say that Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there.
Okay let's keep in mind that this is the original quote. "Kicks ass" is a simple stupid absolute. Some IDEs do some things better than others. The plugins I use in Eclipse are simply not available in Visual Studio. Are you now going to tell me that I should disregard this information and just always select Visual Studio?
How about this little scenario: my boss tells me that I am to be using headless virtual machines running Linux and Ruby to do my development since that's what we deploy on. Do you really think I'm going to try to use Visual Studio?
It is wrong to say "Microsoft's Visual Studio still kicks ass any other IDE out there" unless you scope your needs! You clearly have limited development experience and do not realize that there are many tools for all jobs and some jobs require one tool over another!
I agree with some of your post, but seriously, don't drop your own opinion in the middle of a comment about how things get modded down because they are "wrong" not because they are "unpopular". It mostly just makes you look stupid and like a dick.
Hey thanks for calling me a "stupid dick" I love you too!
My work here is dung.
By being modded up... so the system is self reinforcing. Also it's self perpetuating, to get modded you need to conform to Slashdot decorum... once indoctrinated into the Slashdot culture most users enjoy it and conform.
I know I used some scary words there but what I'm saying is that Slashdot has developed a system for their site to stay focused, discourage maleficence, and grow. All in all a brilliant system and one I'd like to see copied on other parts of the internet.
Google is just saying "All your content is belong to us." which is what they've always said. Now that's something I don't like much.
And just so I don't come across as a fanboy, the search functionality needs to work, there's no valid reason to lock old stories for editing (just don't archive the newer additions), the new layout SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS (why can't I see the comments I want, I've noticed several times that comments I've posted [at +2] aren't available to users who aren't logged in) and most importantly WHY CAN'T I ACCESS OR DOWNLOAD ALL MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS?!
One slip of the mouse and the thing you meant to mark as "informative" is unfortunately marked as "redundant" instead. I've only done it once out of the hundreds of mod points I've handed out, but I am going to feel guilty about that for a long time. The only known workaround for this is posting in the thread, nullifying all your moderation for that thread, but if it was the fifth post you've modded you don't always want to take back the first four... If Google has a means of fixing that, then maybe it's an improvement. As it stands, to me the moderation here is the best we're going to get. Like democracy, it's a terrible form of goverment and never really works, but it's still better than any other system anyone has come up with.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Slashdot is a cyber-democracy in many ways.
Especially the moderating- it is far from perfect- but it is better than most of the alternative methods.
(my time travel machine reveals that someone will quote Churchill).
Sure the moderating system is flawed. If I have an idea that is contrary to popular opinion it will receive an unfair down mod just because someone disagrees.
If my opinion is agreed upon by the masses- it will be modded higher than someone who has a better post but a non-popular opinion.
That's the same problem, on a political parallel, to democracy though.
Democracy centres around the general publics opinion and voices that are not mainstream don't get heard as much.
As slashdotters we should recongnise the faults- and try to be aware of them- mod someone on the quality of their post- not so much because you agree with them.
I will say- of all the discussion sites and forums I have been a part of- Slashdots simply works better.
It isn't perfect- but it works. (even better than forums I have run and operated)
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
If you ever applied for a patent you'll know it's just a standard procedure in patent application.
Basically, you list all known prior art to the best of your knowledge, and then state the advantages of your invention over prior art. In fact Google wouldn't be doing a good job (and risk having the patent application rejected) if they didn't mention the Slashdot mod system and its perceived shortcomings.
Of course, whether the whole idea is patentable to begin with is another story.
Tried to post first, but Google slashdotted slashdot.
basically to create moderators that can themselves create moderators in a never-ending fractal like pyramid.
Seems to me in a lot of situations either you would get the same, only one type of opinion is wanted, because the moderators are careful to only award that that group and revoke if they see otherwise, or simply everyone eventually becomes a moderator.
And many communities are not really geared towards knowing the other members well, sure you see lots of interesting insightful posts by people but that does not guarantee that they would make a good moderator.
I have been commenting here longer then my adult life and know of no one that I have particular reason to believe that they would be a better moderator then anyone else. And on the other hand if you simply went my insightful/professional posts well then I could compile a list of a thousand people.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Furthermore, where/what is the bus, and how did slashdot get thrown under it? If you're going to use an analogy involving a bus (large heavy moving vehicle presumably unable to avoid the incident), a victim (person obviously within range of the bus, and presumably the target of attempted murder), and a perpetrator (second person who deliberately sabatoges the first as the bus incidentally passes by), then for christ's sake, think about it first.
Moderators are selected based on past moderations, and the layers are circular. If others have moderated you nicely, you get to moderate yourself.
There has to be something else Slashdot is doing other than this. My account's karma has been Excellent for years, yet I've never had mod points on Slashdot even once. What might I be doing wrong?
I think I may want to contest this patent.
The patent cites Slashdot comment moderation as an example of how not to assign importance to user actions. Its authors were apparently unaware that the algorithm they described in November 2010 is virtually identical to the way Slashdot has actually assigned importance to user voting on Firehose stories since May 2008 (give or take). I know because I wrote it.
What this patent calls "authority," we call user "clout."
Multiple clouts, actually. Each Slashdot user has a number that describes how valuable the system believes their up/down votes in the firehose are, and it's separate from how valuable their descriptive tags applied to stories are. (Up/down votes are simply tags with special names, making vote-scoring and description-determination very similar under the hood.)
It's been a while since I looked at this code -- I work for sister company ThinkGeek now -- but scanning over our public repository here are some of the interesting parts:
plugs/Tags/tags_updateclouts.pl - the tags_peerclout table is the way that each type of clout is built. It has fixed entries at gen=0, the zeroth generation, which would typically be the Slashdot editors or other users considered reliable and definitive. To build gen=1, the code looks at how many users tagged or voted on the same objects as the gen=0 users did, and assigns the gen=1 users scores based on similarity (or difference). Then from the gen=1 users, gen=2 users are assigned scores similarly, and so on.
The gen=0 entries in that table "designate one or more contributing authorities by delegating to each a specific quantity of authority." I don't think I could describe that better myself.
plugins/Tags/Clout/Vote.pm process_nextgen() - here's where each new generation of user clout is successively determined, for firehose votes in particular. Line 194 invokes the algorithm and line 203 assigns that user their new voting clout. This iterative process is the automated method through which "each contributing authority may in turn designate and delegate authority to one or more additional contributing authorities."
plugins/Tags/Clout/Vote.pm init() - sum_weight_vectors totals the change in clout for each generation, and possible weight decreases exponentially. If you're in gen=1 the maximum weight you can have is only 60% of the maximum from gen=0, etc. The fraction is smaller than 100%, which helps ensure "that the total quantity of authority delegated does not exceed the quantity of authority the contributing authority was itself delegated." When the clouts are used to determine firehose item ratings, "the ratings are combined in a manner that affords a higher priority to the ratings provided by contributing authorities to which a greater quantity of authority was delegated."
All this may have changed since it was written. I don't actually know what's running on Slashdot at this moment. I'm just going by the public repository that I knew was on sf.net, and I don't even know if there's a later version of the code available anywhere.
But I suspect that this system would constitute prior art.
Also, looking over my code from 2008, boy, I really wish I'd put in more comments.
Negativity is always more powerful than positivity on positions. What plus only systems do, such as on Facebook, Twitter and Google+ is rank things purely on their positive ratings, though Twitter's ranking is obscured through the Trending Topics system.
Plus only systems don't let anyone actively destroy content, but simply choose to promote or not. Slashdot could use the same system using uncapped mod points per post, and allowing to see top X posts, instead of setting which score to see. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that only random users can mod.
I8-D
Hasn't Perlmonks done something close to what they describe for a long time?
A quick Google search for google blog yields the official google blog, which doesn't even allow comments. I've seen Google-based blogs here and there with comment sections, but have never found them very useful or interesting. Maybe /. comment moderation isn't perfect, especially for politically charged or anti-Google posts, but it's as good or better than any other blog I read. I wonder what Steve Yegge would say about this...
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
Why can't a comment be modded "Wrong"?
If the moderator posts a reply, he wastes whatever mod points he's already used. This discourages moderators from moderating articles about subjects in which they are likely to be interested, and actually knowledgeable about the subject matter. Instead, they moderate posts on subjects of casual interest, often modding up a well-articulated post in spite of the fact that it may contain factual problems.
What I'd rather see is a feedback mechanism where a moderator could moderate a post and issue a response to the poster. And give the poster an opportunity to edit their post in response to the moderators input. Not as in a reply to the points made, but rather something along the lines of, "Break this up into paragraphs", or "This fact is no longer true", or "try to avoid insinuating the OP is an idiot". Such a response need not be posted publicly, as the idea is not to refute a post, but to assist in clarifying the poster's original points.
As it stands, the only option is Troll or Flamebait, which don't accurately capture the possibility that a poster is honestly misinformed. Someone who relies on factually incorrect statements may be able to make a broader overall point, or at least be able to represent that even articulate and thoughtful people are occasionally misinformed. To lump it in with the trolls tends to end the discussion rather than increasing the understanding between posters of opposing positions.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
People on /. have been complaining about this for *years*. Back in the day some /.-ers complained about Jon Katz. Then others complained about anything Stallman related. Still others complained about anything remotely redolent of Microsoft astroturfing.
The years have rolled on, and the biases editors and community members are accused of have changed too, but you know what? I can still read the comments on any given article here and expect to find insightful information from at least 1-2 actual experts modded high. So, if I want to read about the latest Mars mission, I'm 80% sure to see a comment about it from someone who works *on that actual mission*. Where else can you find that? Digg? I don't think so.
Knock /. if you will. It's still better than anything else out there. I miss CmdrTaco and Hemos and CowboyNeal and all the others; when CmdrTaco left I was truly sad like a member of my family had died. But the ethos they created lives on, and I hope it never dies.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
... it's still better then 99% of the websites you find on the internet. Slashdot is really for off-the cuff discussion anyway, there's only so much energy people have and are willing to commit to any kind of discussion and the more complicated the discussion the longer time it takes to digest even reading multiple times. Discussion forums optimize talking about rather low energy and lower effort topics because complexity naturally limits your audience and the points of view. The higher you go the less peers you have, it's just the nature of intelligence, genetics, experience and luck of how your particular mind works and where you ended up born on planet earth.
We have to remember the internet reflects the demographics that visits the site. Slashdot typically attracts americans and so is filled with americanized bias. I've seen forums suggesting slashdot has a leftwing bias, which couldn't be further from the truth.
If anything over the last few years slashdot is if anything a highly pro-free market forum that is highly critical and cynical of ANYTHING in general in which concentrated power acts unethically and without sophistication. You tend to see unintelligent right wing types talk about slashdots 'leftwing bias' if anything slashdot is more libertarian free-market but with a general trend for protecting civil rights and especially open discourse. Intellectual types tend to value open-ness and freedom from oppressive government and the corporate forces that control the congress and the government then anything else.
I especially hate those people who are pro DRM and pro removing of our rights and then go on to whine about 'entitlement' if anything today the vast majority of the citizenry is so brainwashed and intellectually bankrupt they would vote in a dictatorship just to remove people who offend their sensibilities either morally, politically or otherwise. Despite my own misgivings about the more misinformed members of slashdot regarding the history of capitalism. I'm still disturbed at how illiterate typical internet commenters are about history and what most little people had to go through to gain any amount of protection from both corporations and government.
But I'm glad that at least here I see there is a deep cynicism against all forms of concentrated power. "Business" and "government" are just labels for groups of people with power, one rules through force of property and price and the threat of joblessness and deprivation and the other rules by force and law protecting the corporate social order. Unfortunately they've always been in bed together throughout history commerce and men of wealth have always been intertwined with government, the fact that americans can be so brainwashed to be 'anti government' instead of 'anti-bad government' is a testament the effectiveness of corporate marketing.
Many governments were originally instituted to protect the weak from the strong to begin with, over time all human institutions decay or become corrupted because the quality of human beings that enter those positions can't be guaranteed through the randomness of human breeding and the fact that good people tend to out number bad people on planet earth by a large margin and as is reflected in the history of mankind.
There is also the problem of generational gaps and change. There is I imagine a lot of age skew, young people tend to be more clueless then older people in areas of history and so depending on their inborn temperament they will adopt a political ideology that is appealing to their nature whether that be aggressively egotistical (libertarian free market types) or those who lean towards kindness and selflessness, who learn the hardway through bullying and being on the end of severe behavior either from family or school which ends up directing their politics to become more moderate when it comes to trade and having strong views based on protecting the weak from the strong and who are historically unaware and clueless of all bloodshed in capitalism name.
I propose that it cumulatively costs mod points to mod up or down. Mod points can be accumulated from a number of different accounts working together to mod a post. E.g.
Mod is at 1 - going to cost 1 to mod it up or down Mod is at 2 - going to cost 2 to mod it 1 point up or down Mod is at 3 - going to cost 3 to mod it 1 point up or down. Mod is at 2 - going to cost 2 to mod it 1 point up or down. Mod is at 1, 0, -1 - going to cost 1 to mod it 1 point up or down.
Karma is still deducted a point at a time. Makes it much more expensive to karma bomb people. At the moment, if a post is at +5 and you want to bomb to -1, no worries, 6 accounts. Under the new system, 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 15 accounts to bomb a post down to -1 from 5. GNAA, goatse etc will still only cost 1 to mod into oblivion because nobody ever takes that up to 5 in the first place. It will make factually inaccurate posts harder to mod down, but at some point you need to make a choice - what's better, factually inaccurate (which may never go away), or antisocial behaviour (karma bombing, gnaa etc)?
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
Some posts are both funny and insightful. Some are modded troll then insightful, implying that they're probably contentious points.
I'd like to see all mod points awarded to a post. The overall scoring for the filters is fine, but I'd still prefer to see (Score: 4 Insightful, 4 Funny) rather than just (Score: 4) or (Score: 4 Funny).
"Slashdot is the worst implementation of moderation except all the others that have been tried."
Personally, there are things I would tinker with. Google's idea seems interesting. I don't like the fact that mod points expire so soon, I would like to have them when I have the time to read through comments at 0 or even -1. I don't know what the algorithm is but positive votes should have much more weight than negative votes. If a minority vote something interesting or insightful it's worth reading, even if a majority has modded it down. Pure flamebait or trolling would get no positive votes at all.
Subtle humour or sarcasm often gets modded down.
There is too much twitch moderation - skimming a comment for a couple of seconds and modding based on that.
People who do more modding down than modding up shouldn't get points (I don't know if this already happens).
There needs to be a forking system, so that interesting discussions can persist, not disappear off the page.
All that being said, slashdot is the only website I have ever seen where I want to read comments. It still baffles me how news websites for example provide a platform for utter stupidity just below a quality article.